Modify zones

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true): it discloses 'in one undo step', 'Only the given fields change' (patch semantics), per-item rejection behavior, the exact return shape, and the critical side effect that setting referencePoint RE-CREATES the zone with a NEW GUID. These are exactly the destructive/identity traits an agent must know before committing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense but well front-loaded: the mutation+atomicity claim comes first, then geometry semantics, then rejection/return behavior, then the read-first pointer. It is a single long paragraph and could be broken into bullet structure, but every sentence carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 1000-item patch tool with a deep nested schema, the description completes the picture by stating return shape ({results: [{guid}|{guid?,error}]} in input order) and the referencePoint GUID-change side effect. Missing only the distinction from the sibling update_zones, which keeps it from a 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the patch fields, geometry modes and return contract in depth. The description only restates a few of these (polygon -> manual, referencePoint -> automatic, automatic:false freezes outline) without adding syntax the schema lacks, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Changes existing zones') and enumerates the mutable field families, so an agent immediately understands scope. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling 'update_zones' or clarify why two zone-mutation tools exist, which prevents a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description supplies a read-first guideline ('Use get_zones / get_element_details to read current values') and a failure-mode note ('Non-zone GUIDs are rejected per item'). But it never states when to use this vs update_zones or create_zones, and gives no exclusions, so usage is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.